6 ms·

I'm 95 hours into BoTW and still going very strong. For me that is unheard of, as I typically get board of adventure/rpg type games (I'm more into arcade style

by city41 10y ago

I'm 95 hours into BoTW and still going very strong. For me that is unheard of, as I typically get board of adventure/rpg type games (I'm more into arcade style games). My concern with the Switch though is it's the same problem the Wii U had: Nintendo is likely the only company that will really make AAA games for it, and they can only make so many games. The next game I'm looking forward to comes in December (Mario), and Nintendo have not announced anything else compelling yet. By making these oddball consoles, Nintendo puts themselves in an impossible position of supporting the console entirely on their own. With how much resources it takes to make AAA games today, they just can't scale up to the challenge. BoTW was in development for what, 5 years?

mhink 10y ago
I could be wrong on this, but my understanding was that several third-party publishers have shown public interest in developing for the Switch (Bethesda comes to mind). I would hope they would have learned from their mistakes with the Wii U. Moreover, I've also heard that a development license for the Switch is crazy cheap- like $500? I wouldn't be surprised if they're more interested in indie and "pro-indie" titles than AAA. I mean, look at "One-Two Switch"- it's almost more of a tech demo than a party game.
- PopsiclePete 10y ago
  I hope you're right. But honestly, I played Skyrim for a bit in 2011, I'm not interested in shelling out $60 to play it again....on a small screen. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of Bethesda's...."commitment" - I doubt it's anything more than ports of old games. I actually don't know anyone (that includes me) who bought a Switch as their primary system or as the system to play all games on - everyone I know bought it to play Nintendo games. Looking at the eShop now, it's Zelda, followed by some shovelware, followed by games I can get on Steam. Or the PS4. There's gotta be some non-Nintendo Switch exclusives that are actually good and not just ports/re-releases.
AdamJacobMuller 10y ago
Even if BoTW is the only game I ever play on my switch, I still say its worth it (and I way overpaid to get one early). Game is amazing.
criddell 10y ago
You're likely to get over 100 hours out of BoTW. Even if that were the only game you ever got, you are only looking at around $3.50 per hour of fun. That's not terrible.
- Jach 10y ago
  Gaming is generally one of the cheapest hobbies to have. Even on the hardcore PC side with monster rigs, it still can typically come out way cheaper over a multi-year period than, say, skiing. But $3.50/hr is a lot for gaming, and a lot for BotW when it's on the Wii U too... BotW is probably worth it but I'll wait. :) (One example, I got Dark Souls for $5 and have 100 hours on it, that's 5 cents per hour. Sure I didn't get it when it first came out (otherwise it would have been more, though not that much more -- but at the same time I may also have put more time into it with more active PvP) but I didn't need to, I had other stuff to play. I've got quite a backlog, or things to buy to add to the backlog when they're on sale, of amazing games to play that I don't need to play the latest thing at full price. Or a more recent example, I spent $15 helping back Yooka-Laylee two years ago, and it took me 23 hours to 100% it, so 65 cents per hour. Suppose it was $60, though, that's still only $2.60/hr.) But bringing it back to the main point of the thread, which isn't cost, what's Nintendo going to do next? They have a ton of unused/underutilized IP, they can't make AAA content on a similar schedule to the rest of the industry, and it's not because their offerings are just that much better. Additionally when people can have 100+ hours of fun with the launch title, why are they going to buy other games when they come out? The Wii was notorious for having a very low bought-games-per-console figure, even though there were several great games for it. I can't imagine many third parties looking at the Switch as anything but a dumping ground (when the added dev cost is low) for stuff they already put on other platforms. In a few years everyone will have a mobile phone more powerful anyway so maybe it won't be much work at all.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
I'd be happy with Mario, Zelda, METROID (cough cough) and a few other Nintendo big-hitters, honestly. For me, the Switch is just the "Nintendo tax" in order to get to the games. Sony has a lot of developers making exclusives, which is why I own a PS4. But virtually anything else is cross-platform already, except for the MS exclusives. And chances are, I'd get a 3rd-party cross-platform for the PS4 Pro before the Switch. I don't know how Nintendo can dig themselves out of this predicament.
- city41 10y ago
  I'd be happy with that too, but look at the Wii U. It never got Metroid, and in a sense it didn't even get Zelda. Both of its Mario games were reuses of previous game engines. I think it's pretty clear that Nintendo can't deliver as many big games per generation as we'd all like.

by city41 10y ago

mhink 10y ago

I could be wrong on this, but my understanding was that several third-party publishers have shown public interest in developing for the Switch (Bethesda comes to mind). I would hope they would have learned from their mistakes with the Wii U. Moreover, I've also heard that a development license for the Switch is crazy cheap- like $500? I wouldn't be surprised if they're more interested in indie and "pro-indie" titles than AAA. I mean, look at "One-Two Switch"- it's almost more of a tech demo than a party game.

PopsiclePete 10y ago
I hope you're right. But honestly, I played Skyrim for a bit in 2011, I'm not interested in shelling out $60 to play it again....on a small screen. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of Bethesda's...."commitment" - I doubt it's anything more than ports of old games. I actually don't know anyone (that includes me) who bought a Switch as their primary system or as the system to play all games on - everyone I know bought it to play Nintendo games. Looking at the eShop now, it's Zelda, followed by some shovelware, followed by games I can get on Steam. Or the PS4. There's gotta be some non-Nintendo Switch exclusives that are actually good and not just ports/re-releases.

AdamJacobMuller 10y ago

Even if BoTW is the only game I ever play on my switch, I still say its worth it (and I way overpaid to get one early). Game is amazing.

criddell 10y ago

You're likely to get over 100 hours out of BoTW. Even if that were the only game you ever got, you are only looking at around $3.50 per hour of fun. That's not terrible.

Jach 10y ago
Gaming is generally one of the cheapest hobbies to have. Even on the hardcore PC side with monster rigs, it still can typically come out way cheaper over a multi-year period than, say, skiing. But $3.50/hr is a lot for gaming, and a lot for BotW when it's on the Wii U too... BotW is probably worth it but I'll wait. :) (One example, I got Dark Souls for $5 and have 100 hours on it, that's 5 cents per hour. Sure I didn't get it when it first came out (otherwise it would have been more, though not that much more -- but at the same time I may also have put more time into it with more active PvP) but I didn't need to, I had other stuff to play. I've got quite a backlog, or things to buy to add to the backlog when they're on sale, of amazing games to play that I don't need to play the latest thing at full price. Or a more recent example, I spent $15 helping back Yooka-Laylee two years ago, and it took me 23 hours to 100% it, so 65 cents per hour. Suppose it was $60, though, that's still only $2.60/hr.) But bringing it back to the main point of the thread, which isn't cost, what's Nintendo going to do next? They have a ton of unused/underutilized IP, they can't make AAA content on a similar schedule to the rest of the industry, and it's not because their offerings are just that much better. Additionally when people can have 100+ hours of fun with the launch title, why are they going to buy other games when they come out? The Wii was notorious for having a very low bought-games-per-console figure, even though there were several great games for it. I can't imagine many third parties looking at the Switch as anything but a dumping ground (when the added dev cost is low) for stuff they already put on other platforms. In a few years everyone will have a mobile phone more powerful anyway so maybe it won't be much work at all.

PopsiclePete 10y ago

I'd be happy with Mario, Zelda, METROID (cough cough) and a few other Nintendo big-hitters, honestly. For me, the Switch is just the "Nintendo tax" in order to get to the games. Sony has a lot of developers making exclusives, which is why I own a PS4. But virtually anything else is cross-platform already, except for the MS exclusives. And chances are, I'd get a 3rd-party cross-platform for the PS4 Pro before the Switch. I don't know how Nintendo can dig themselves out of this predicament.

city41 10y ago
I'd be happy with that too, but look at the Wii U. It never got Metroid, and in a sense it didn't even get Zelda. Both of its Mario games were reuses of previous game engines. I think it's pretty clear that Nintendo can't deliver as many big games per generation as we'd all like.